If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

the 'bad seeds' have been removed, and there are posters on here that guarenteed, GUARENTEED, that the Steelers will be better next season without them.

Personally, Chadman is looking forward to 2013 with unbridaled enthusiasm now that we 'got rid' of those heathens.

Wait... hang on... those same posters are now the ones complaining that the Steelers are not doing well in Free Agency... like the Steelers were expected to remove the evil doers & replace them with high priced FA's... maybe that guarentee isn't worth all that much after all.

In hindsight, it'd sure be nice knowing Wallace & Mendenhall were on the roster in 2013...

In a recent radio interview Steve Young commented the absolute importance of lockerroom chemistry. Basically saying you can win some games without it, but there is no way a team can win a Superbowl without it. Too many things for a team to overcome during the season and if you have lockerroom animosity or even indifference, it is typically too much to add and still expect team greatness. We witnessed it when the team was focused on getting Bettis to the bowl, same with Ravens and Lewis. Too many teams undervalue it, but I think the Steelers organization is one that really does know its value.

Since you do not possess the faculties to understand when you insulting someone, I will connect the dots for you... Super Steeler says that "some are just pissed he stood his ground and got the money he thought he could get..." This means that you are putting words into the mouths of anyone who is glad that Wallace is gone, and the statement reflects an ignorant and immature viewpoint, therefore you are calling me ignorant and immature. Get it? And there was a BIG discussion of the Wallace cancer last season before you signed up for your account in December.

When you make inferences about why I do something, then you are commenting about me. And if it is an insulting inference, then you are insulting me. I have valid points about why Wallace is a cancer and it has nothing to with being upset because he stood up to the Steelers. You will NEVER see anything but a point of view and facts to back it up anything that I debate. Don't put words in other people's mouths and everyone will get along just fine.

Produce the facts, you have no valid points but a bunch of malarkey. I gave FACTS on his numbers but your word is gold huh.

Fear? If the email I got last night is anything close to being accurate you guys haven't seen nothing yet.

And don't waste your time, I'm not going to post it.

Quite frankly, unless the Steelers were going to trade Ben this year (when there appears to be no franchise QB in the draft), there is nothing from the FO that I would really fear, no young players that I couldn't imagine living without.

In a recent radio interview Steve Young commented the absolute importance of lockerroom chemistry. Basically saying you can win some games without it, but there is no way a team can win a Superbowl without it. Too many things for a team to overcome during the season and if you have lockerroom animosity or even indifference, it is typically too much to add and still expect team greatness. We witnessed it when the team was focused on getting Bettis to the bowl, same with Ravens and Lewis. Too many teams undervalue it, but I think the Steelers organization is one that really does know its value.

I do agree with what you are saying but it's just interesting that this comes out of Steve Young's mouth. Many 49ers thought he was an arrogant SOB yet he led them to a SB victory. Some Ravens aren't that thrilled with Flacco but they still won. Now that I think about it more maybe its just the fact that you win people think you have great chemistry. Back in the Buddy Parker years the old Detroit Lions used to have brawls in their locker roon then they would go out and win a championship. Is that great chemistry?

I do agree with what you are saying but it's just interesting that this comes out of Steve Young's mouth. Many 49ers thought he was an arrogant SOB yet he led them to a SB victory. Some Ravens aren't that thrilled with Flacco but they still won. Now that I think about it more maybe its just the fact that you win people think you have great chemistry. Back in the Buddy Parker years the old Detroit Lions used to have brawls in their locker roon then they would go out and win a championship. Is that great chemistry?

It seems to be a chicken/egg thing doesn't it?? Is good "chemistry" causing victories or a nice side effect of being victorious?? Philosophers could go at that for decades...

In a recent radio interview Steve Young commented the absolute importance of lockerroom chemistry. Basically saying you can win some games without it, but there is no way a team can win a Superbowl without it. Too many things for a team to overcome during the season and if you have lockerroom animosity or even indifference, it is typically too much to add and still expect team greatness. We witnessed it when the team was focused on getting Bettis to the bowl, same with Ravens and Lewis. Too many teams undervalue it, but I think the Steelers organization is one that really does know its value.

Anyone who doesn't realize this is lost. No team will ever win a SB that isn't "together." Not everyone has to be best friends; if you've been on teams, or even social groups, you always have your closest 4-6 friends (more likely like closest 2-3 and then a 2nd-teir 4-7, you will never have 50 best friends). But, anytime a team has unity, it is far better. Remember the 2005 run with Bettis (as you mentioned)? Remember the next season, which was lousy? Willie Parker said the previous year, everyone had each others' backs, but in 2006, it was not the case. We have heard several comments about last year and the lack of unity and chemistry. Ben is either unaware of this, or is being deceitful (as it kind of puts him in a poor light), but I think it is undeniable they had chemistry issues, with the loss of leaders like Ward, Farrior and Smith. I think the signings of seemingly below-average talent is an effort to add guys who are more "team" in nature (not necessarily leaders, but good teammates as opposed to Wallace, Mendenhall, etc.)

It seems to be a chicken/egg thing doesn't it?? Is good "chemistry" causing victories or a nice side effect of being victorious?? Philosophers could go at that for decades...

I think wins help everyone get along, but I don't think you win very much without some decent team chemistry. You may not start out with total unity but build it each season. You can lose it from season to season with mostly the same players. Each season is different. How many times have we seen teams sign all kinds of talent but all the new players seem to disturb team chemistry? Look at the Eagles the last few years. Look at the Skins prior to the RG3 era. Teams who add too many free agents always under-perform. Football is far more than just about who has talent. You must have a good chemistry to succeed.

the 'bad seeds' have been removed, and there are posters on here that guarenteed, GUARENTEED, that the Steelers will be better next season without them.

Personally, Chadman is looking forward to 2013 with unbridaled enthusiasm now that we 'got rid' of those heathens.

Wait... hang on... those same posters are now the ones complaining that the Steelers are not doing well in Free Agency... like the Steelers were expected to remove the evil doers & replace them with high priced FA's... maybe that guarentee isn't worth all that much after all.

In hindsight, it'd sure be nice knowing Wallace & Mendenhall were on the roster in 2013...

I am still curious how you condemn reactionary posts as bad for the board, and then revel in posting inflammatory posts yourself. Seems more than a tad hypocritical. Are you comfortable dealing in hypocrisy?